This blog is about debating political issues, with specific reference to human rights

General Rizwan Akhtar to Head ISI From November

Director General of ISI Lt Gen Zaheerul Islam, who was appointed as the spy chief in March 2012, retires on Nov 7, 2014.

An extension for Gen Islam was never considered and the military never asked for it.

Speculation was thus rife on the next man who will hold the position called DG ISI. With the control that the head of the ISI enjoys on intelligence gathering within the country and the role the agency has played in Pakistani politics, the filling of the post generally attracts considerable attention. And at the present juncture, the charge that ISI is playing a role in instigating the dharnas and the general state of the civil-military relations has added to the interest in Gen Islam’s successor.

On September 22, the Nawaz Sharif government appointed Lt Gen Rizwan Akhtar as next chief of the ISI. He will take charge when his predecessor Lt Gen Zaheerul Islam retires on Nov 7. The new ISI director general was named by the PM on the recommendation of Chief of the Army Staff Gen Raheel Sharif in accordance with a set procedure for appointment to this position.

The two met following the announcement of the new ISI chief.

Lt Gen Rizwan’s posting did not come as a surprise because he was long tipped for this position. Prior to the appointment, he was promoted as a three-star general. He was previously heading Sindh Rangers as a two-star general. He was posted as director general of Sindh Rangers in March 2012 and during his tenure he oversaw the Karachi operation that met with mixed results.

Maj Gen Bilal Akbar will replace him as DG Rangers.

Gen Rizwan’s parent regiment is Frontier Force. He remained General Officer Commanding in South Waziristan from 2010 to 2012. His postings in Karachi and South Waziristan provide him a good background in counter-terrorism which is currently the focus of ISI.

Gen Sharif picked a relatively younger general to head the ISI.

With Gen Rizwan’s appointment as the next ISI chief and other promotions/postings — most of which were crucial — Gen Sharif is said to be consolidating his position. But former military spokesman retired Maj Gen Ather Abbas believes otherwise. “It will be wrong to assume that all of the promoted generals were chief’s men, it’s rather an indication of a functioning system. The promotions show that they were made on the basis of merit and performance,” he said. According to the procedure, the army chief recommends a panel of lieutenant generals to the PM for the latter to make the final choice.

However, at least once in the recent past, only one name was sent to the PM. In 2012, the then army chief retired Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani sent only one name — Lt Gen Zaheerul Islam — to the PPP government for appointment as the ISI chief, not allowing the government any choice. The government, which was recovering from the memogate controversy, accepted Mr Kayani’s proposal without resistance. And while this time around the appointment took place against the backdrop of another political crisis, Army Chief Gen Raheel Sharif is not Kayani and PM Sharif does not appear to be as willing to acquiesce as the PPP government then did.

Why Rizwan?

Those who keep an eye on military affairs suggest that the army chief considered issues such as retirement date, experience of intelligence operations and political inclinations.

Gen Sharif, who has over two years in office, may have wanted an ISI chief who will last as long as his own tenure. This is perhaps the reason that eight lieutenant generals were not considered.

Analysts suggest that the army chief, who does not have much intelligence experience, may have desired an ISI chief who is well versed with the system and can adequately assist him in intelligence matters.

Even though DG ISI technically works under the PM and is supposed to directly report to him, the army chief has traditionally been the spymaster’s de facto boss.

Gen Sharif would want a loyalist in office, while PM Sharif may also be looking for one.

Extrapolating from this, it can be said that Gen Sharif preferred a politically neutral officer. Any suggestion or hints of what the government may prefer would not have helped that particular officer; in fact, it may just have killed his chances altogether.

Additionally, Gen Sharif perhaps looked for someone he could trust and this may be someone he had promoted himself. Gen Sharif has already given some important posts to younger generals — the appointment of Chief of General Staff Lt Gen Ashfaq Nadeem is a case in point.

Former ISI, chief retired Lt Gen Shuja Pasha, was given the ISI assignment immediately after his elevation from major general to lieutenant general.

Five Promotions

In addition to a new DG ISI, five officers were promoted to the rank of lieutenant generals to fill the vacancies created by the retirement of five lieutenant generals on Oct 1. Major generals who have been promoted to the next rank are: Maj Gen Mian Muhammad Hilal Hussain, Maj Gen Ghayur Mahmood, Maj Gen Nazir Ahmed Butt, Maj Gen Naveed Mukhtar and Maj Gen Hidayatur Rehman.

Their postings were announced the same day to avoid speculations.

New Corp Commanders

Gen Hidayat, the first general officer from Northern Areas, was posted as Corps Commander Peshawar, Gen Naveed Mukhtar as Corps Commander Karachi, Gen Hilal Hussain as Corps Commander Mangla, Gen Ghayur as Corps Commander Gujranwala and Gen Nazir Butt as Inspector General of C&IT Branch at the GHQ.

This was the second but most significant reshuffle by Gen Sharif after he became the army chief in late 2013. He looked to be making a fresh start by posting the newly promoted generals to all positions falling vacant in October/November instead of moving some of the senior lieutenant generals in the ranks.

The second aspect of the promotions is that most of the generals bring with them fresh experience of fighting terrorism.

Gen Hidayat has previously commanded brigades in Khyber Agency and North Waziristan. He will take over from Lt Gen Khalid Rabbani who retired on Oct 2.

Gen Naveed Mukhtar was heading the ISI’s counter-terrorism wing. His appointment reflects the army’s desire to concentrate on fighting terrorism in Karachi which is rapidly getting entangled in Taliban and Al Qaeda tentacles. Gen Mukhtar, before his ISI posting, commanded brigade in South Waziristan and remained posted in operations directorate. He will take over from Lt Gen Sajjad Ghani who retires on Oct 25.

Gen Hilal Hussain will succeed Lt Gen Tariq Khan at Mangla Corps, which is the strike corps. Gen Khan, well known for his contributions in the war on terror, retires on Oct 2.

Gen Ghayur, who as General Officer Commanding in North Waziristan stirred a controversy in 2011 for publicly acknowledging effectiveness of US drones in the fight against militants when the official policy was to condemn the drone strikes, will replace Lt Gen Saleem Nawaz upon his retirement on Nov 20. Gen Ghayur was currently posted as vice chief of general staff.

Gen Nazir Butt has earlier served as commandant Pakistan Military Academy.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Published by alaiwah

ALAIWAH'S PHILOSOPHY
About 12 years ago, while studying Arabic in Cairo, I became friends with some Egyptian students. As we got to know each other better we also became concerned about each other’s way of life. They wanted to save my soul from eternally burning in hell by converting me to Islam. I wanted to save them from wasting their real life for an illusory afterlife by converting them to the secular worldview I grew up with.
In one of our discussions they asked me if I was sure that there is no proof for God’s existence.
The question took me by surprise. Where I had been intellectually socialized it was taken for granted that there was none.
I tried to remember Kant’s critique of the ontological proof for God. “Fine,” Muhammad said, “but what about this table, does its existence depend on a cause?” “Of course,” I answered. “And its cause depends on a further cause?” Muhammad was referring to the metaphysical proof for God’s existence, first formulated by the Muslim philosopher
Avicenna.
Avicenna argues, things that depend on a cause for their existence must have something that exists through itself as their first cause. And this necessary existent is God. I had a counter-argument to that to which they in turn had a rejoinder. The discussion ended inconclusively.
I did not convert to Islam, nor did my Egyptian friends become atheists. But I learned an important lesson from our discussions: that I hadn’t properly thought through some of the most basic convictions underlying my way of life and worldview — from God’s existence to the human good.
The challenge of my Egyptian friends forced me to think hard about these issues and defend views that had never been questioned in the milieu where I came from.
These discussions gave me first-hand insight into how deeply divided we are on fundamental moral, religious and philosophical questions. While many find these disagreements disheartening, I will argue that they can be a good thing — if we manage to make them fruitful for a culture debate.
Can we be sure that our beliefs about the world match how the world actually is and that our subjective preferences match what is objectively in our best interest? If the truth is important to us these are pressing questions.
We might value the truth for different reasons: because we want to live a life that is good and doesn’t just appear so; because we take knowing the truth to be an important component of the good life; because we consider living by the truth a moral obligation independent of any consequences; or because we want to come closer to God who is the Truth. Of course we wouldn’t hold our beliefs and values if we weren’t convinced that they are true. But that’s no evidence that they are.
Weren’t my Egyptian friends just as convinced of their views as I was of mine? More generally: don’t we find a bewildering diversity of beliefs and values, all held with great conviction, across different times and cultures? If considerations such as these lead you to concede that your present convictions could be false, then you are a fallibilist.
And if you are a fallibilist you can see why valuing the truth and valuing a culture of debate are related: because you will want to critically examine your beliefs and values, for which a culture of debate offers an excellent setting.
View all posts by alaiwah